[vzidex]

Definition, martial law: Martial law is the temporary imposition of direct military control of normal civil functions or suspension of civil law by a government, especially in response to a temporary emergency where civil forces are overwhelmed, or in an occupied territory. [1]

The key phrases are "imposition of direct military control of normal civil functions" and "suspension of civil law by a government".

The Canadian Emergencies Act, which was invoked by the Liberal government today, specifically states the following: "For greater certainty, nothing in this Act derogates from the authority of the Government of Canada to deal with emergencies on any property, territory or area in respect of which the Parliament of Canada has jurisdiction" [2].

I'd do a deeper reading but I'm a bit lazy, but my understanding is that the EA does not allow, in any way, a shift in governance that could be described as "martial law" - where the military is in control of civil functions and can create or remove laws as military leadership desires. Even with the EA invoked, the federal government still controls the Canadian military (but can be assisted in enforcing civil law _by_ the military).

I'm no fan of Trudeau either, but we should seek to be precise when discussing hot situations like this. People can get very inflamed off of internet posts and the idea that we're under "martial law" is riling people up.

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Martial_law

[2] https://laws-lois.justice.gc.ca/eng/acts/e-4.5/page-1.html

[tablespoon]

> I'd do a deeper reading but I'm a bit lazy, but my understanding is that the EA does not allow, in any way, a shift in governance that could be described as "martial law" - where the military is in control of civil functions and can create or remove laws as military leadership desires. Even with the EA invoked, the federal government still controls the Canadian military (but can be assisted in enforcing civil law _by_ the military).

Is that martial law is? What you're describing sounds more like a coup to me ("where the military is in control of civil functions and can create or remove laws as military leadership desires").

My understanding of martial law (very colored by being an American) is basically direct enforcement of domestic government authority by the military with little or no recourse to normal civilian oversight (e.g. courts). However, the military isn't acting independently, but is still taking orders from some civilian leader in some part of the government.

[CryptoBanker]

Both of the situations you described can be accurate simultaneously.

There are two levels of civil government. The military can override the civil functions of the lower level (the states) while still taking orders from the upper level (the federal government)

[cf100clunk]

Please apply what you've just said directly to contemporary Canadian governance and polity.

[arcticbull]

In ordinary functioning of government and civil society there's an effective separation of the army and the police in law enforcement. In the US, this is governed by the posse comitatus act. Canada doesn't really have an analogue, the government can request the assistance of the army when lower levels of government are unable to perform their duties sufficiently to maintain order.

The use of the emergencies act makes it clear that this is one of those situations and allows the government to utilize the military to support lower levels of law enforcement.

This is not martial law. This is not a coup. This is not unprecedented - after all Pierre Trudeau used the War Measures Act (predecessor to the Emergencies Act) to restore order in the October Crisis.

This is more like a state calling in the national guard.

The answer to lower levels of government not being able to maintain order isn't to roll over. It's to bring in more help. That's what's being done here. And it's governed by the Charter. Much more stringently than the War Measures Act ever was.

[edit] We cannot allow a small, loud, group of individuals to overturn the democratic will of the people as decided in the last election. This is un-democratic, unfair, and must end immediately. We can talk about ending restrictions in the open, but not with a boot on our throats. This occupation must end before we decide on what to do next. I remind you of the interview Pierre Trudeau gave re: the October Crisis.

  Pierre Trudeau: Yeah, well there's a lot of bleeding hearts around who just don't like to see people with helmets and guns. All I can say is, go on and bleed, but it's more important to keep law and order in this society than to be worried about weak-kneed people who don't like the looks of a soldier's helmet. [1]

I highly recommend listening to the longer speech [2]. Far more interesting than any speech given by Justin, IMO. Obviously a different situation, but with similar roots: wanting to overthrow a democratically elected government because they don't like the lawful, legal, constitutional decisions.

They can have their say in peaceful protest, in court or at the next election - and not before.

[1] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DeTsQQ22Uwc

[2] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PHaoBD-eakk

[imwillofficial]

“government because they don't like the lawful, legal, constitutional decisions.” This is a massive mischaracterization of your political opposition.

[arcticbull]

If it's unlawful, illegal or unconstitutional then avenues exist within the courts to resolve their grievances do they not? I'm led to believe that rule of law continues to prevail within Canada.

[edit] Not just that, Trudeau operates a minority government, meaning two other parties could gang up and oust them at basically any time. And yet, he remains in office. I think this really speaks to how small the vocal minority is.

They've brought guns, ammo, knives [1], built encampments, stashed them full of diesel and propane [2], disrupted trade, jobs, lives, supply chains, threatened violence. Harassed and intimidated healthcare workers. And for what? This is not your average picket, and it's gone on more than long enough.

We're all frustrated, we're all tired of this. I'm open to revisiting the health measures, but not like this.

[1] https://news.sky.com/story/freedom-convoy-guns-seized-in-rai...

[2] https://www.newsweek.com/ottawa-police-seize-fuel-truckers-a...

[pyuser583]

My understanding is that international law requires nation have some form of martial law.

The idea is that if your nation is “hosting” a battle field, and the police start arresting belligerents and charging them with civilian crimes, the military can override them and say “you can’t charge invading soldiers with a crime for honorably doing their duty” - they must be treated as POWs, not criminals.

For example, if Russia is attacking Toronto, and a Toronto Police Officer comes across a wounded Russian soldier with an AK-47, she can’t charge the soldier for possessing an illegal weapon. The soldier would have to be treated as a POW.

This means the military must - must! - be able to say “this area is under martial law”.

I doubt this applies to the current situation.

But if Canada is as diligent as they claim to be about International law, they need to have the ability to declare martial law.

[imwillofficial]

“Must”

That’s now how that works, at all.

A soldier doesn’t need to be on a declared battlefield to get battlefield treatment.

Being a member of a military in uniform is enough.